The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Liberal Decides It’s OK to Hint Politicians May Be Hiding Their ‘True’ Religion

Posted on | June 13, 2010 | 57 Comments

No, not Barack Obama. Nikki Haley:

By no means am I questioning their right to convert or their sincerity. . . . I think, instead, that if Haley felt compelled to revise her campaign materials this way, it says a lot about what’s still acceptable to the voters she’s courting.

Neela Bannerjee at Slate scrupulously avoids the Jake Knotts “Nikki the Secret Sikh Raghead” route — Bannerjee is herself of East Indian heritage — but why is it necessary to dwell on Haley’s Sikh ancestry?

Assimilation to a big amorphous “American” identity has been, historically, a slow process for immigrant groups, one that occurs over the course of three or four generations. And some people never discard their hyphenated history. More than 150 years after the Potato Famine, for example, Irish-Americans still tend to be chauvinistic about their heritage — quite proudly Irish, and also often Catholic in the same chip-on-the-shoulder way, as if it would be a personal insult to mistake them for a Methodist or a Lutheran.

Defining oneself as distinct from the Vanilla-American — that stereotypical Wonder-Bread-and-Miracle-Whip WASP — has become a sort of geneaological parlor game since the 1960s. Nowadays, even the blandest of Anglo-American yuppies seem to feel obligated to put an ethnic asterisk beside their ancestry, as if to signify that they’re down with the whole multicultural-diversity agenda.

Sheriff Bart in Blazing Saddles: “My grandmother was Dutch.”

Well, OK. If someone wants to trot out their family tree to make a point, I’m fine with that and will happily share my own pedigree, all the way back to the 18th-century South Carolina forebear through whom I am a distant cousin of that worthless a–hole Republican who lost the election to Obama. (End my family’s shame: Vote for J.D. Hayworth!)

Notice, however, that liberals only want to interrogate the religious and ancestral loyalties of Republicans. Democrats are off-limits.

Anyone who so much as mentions Barack Obama’s middle name is automatically presumed to be a racist Birther wackjob, but the editors at Slate have no problem letting Neela Bannerjee devote 670 words to examining Haley’s Sikh-to-Christian conversion with the suggestive headline, “Nikki, aka Nimrata,” complete with this kind of helpful information:

Punjabis like Haley are often lighter-skinned than the world’s notion of what Indian looks like.

Oh, yeah, and Bannerjee brings up Bobby Jindal for good measure, because it’s always vaguely suspicious to liberals if a Republican isn’t 100% Premium Saltine cracker.

White Guilt, American Shame

If you’ve read Shelby Steele”s book White Guilt, you understand that liberals are engaged in a multi-level strategy to define “Republican” and “conservative” as negative identities by employing a sort of racial jiu-jitsu:

  • Whiteness is bad — If your ancestors arrived with the Pilgrims at Plymouth Rock, you should be ashamed of yourself, you imperialist oppressor. Not only are white people genetically predisposed to genocidal racism but they are also, at the same time, effete and inauthentic. Ergo, if you’re white, the only way you can purge yourself of this congenital blood-guilt (and implicit lack of ethnic coolness) is through displays of empathy and solidarity with the downtrodden brown masses.
  • Assimilation is bad — Perhaps you are fortunate enough not to be descended from those wicked Dead White Males who raped the continent and annihilated its indigenous peoples. It is therefore necessary that you distinguish yourself as Something Else. You must emphasize that you’re Czech or Greek or Polish because to identify as a regular Vanilla-America would be to implicate yourself in the historic hatefulness of slaveowners like George Washington, Injun-killers like Andrew Jackson and Jap-haters like Harry Truman. Immigrant and their descendants must therefore cling tightly to their hyphens, lest they assimilate themselves into complicity in America’s criminal past.
  • America is bad — Given that its founding, expansion and ascent to superpower status were works of unmitigated White Evil, America can only be “good” insofar as there is Hope that we can Change it into something it never originally was. Only by committing yourself to the Progressive mission of remaking White Evil America into a force for World Peace and Social Justice can you redeem yourself as a sophisticated, enlightened and well-meaning person — a cosmopolitan, a bien-pensant.
  • America’s allies are bad — And, by the logical observse, America’s enemies are good. We must therefore abrogate the “special relationship” with England, embrace Castro’s Cuba, and take up the cause of Good Brown Palestinians at the expense of White Evil Israel.
  • Conservative Republicans are the ultimate bad — To reject the liberal worldview is to repudiate what Thomas Sowell has so aptly described as The Vision of the Anointed. Conservatives thus reveal themselves to be benighted — ignorant and probably also malevolent — by suggesting that the United States is a good country whose Constitution, cultural heritage and traditional institutions are worth defending and preserving.

Like Goethe’s devil cited by Marx in the Nineteenth Brumaire, Progressives believe “everything that exists” — in the sense of anything a conservative would recognize as distinctly American — “deserves to perish.” Because conservatives oppose this crusade to destroy America, and because Republicans are de facto the conservative party in American politics, to be a conservative Republican is to define oneself, in the eyes of the Left, as the Enemy of All That Is Good and True.

Angry Mobs of Enlightened Liberals

That reference to Goethe and Marx, by the way, was borrowed from David Horowitz. In 2007, when Horowitz appeared at George Washington University, I watched in fascination as a small crowd of student protesters outside the auditorium chanted: “Racist! Sexist! Anti-gay! David Horowitz go away!”

It so happens that Horowitz isn’t remotely racist or anti-gay. Although I’ve never really seen him address feminism in any direct fashion, I suppose that by the term “sexist” the students meant to suggest Horowitz was against abortion — and I’m pretty sure he’s pro-choice.

The reality of who Horowitz is and what he believes, you see, was entirely irrelevant to the slogans chanted by those GWU students. They have been indoctrinated to believe that all genuinely decent people are obliged to fight relentlessly against racism, sexism and homophobia (which, as they’ve also been taught, are the bedrock principles of the GOP) and because David Horowitz is a Republican, he automatically represents these Bad Republican Things.

David Horowitz is the son of Communist Party members, still fundamentally committed to many of the same liberal ideals that motivated those slogan-shouting students. Yet his knowledge, beliefs and experiences have led Horowitz to identify himself as a Republican and to ally himself, generally, with conservatives. In answer to the old radical slogan that Pete Seeger turned into a folk anthem — “Whose Side Are You On?” — Horowitz answers, “Not yours, pal.”

Not only does this apostasy provoke the Left to shout false accusations of hatefuless at Horowitz, but it also grants them license to dismiss him with a single word:

“Jew.”

Yes, that’s it! He’s a necon, a Zionist imperialist, a hypocritical special pleader whose opinions on every issue foreign and domestic are merely the external manfestations of his ethno-religious chauvinism. The Left is only too happy to suggest you can’t trust a word David Horowitz says because he is a Jew.

Kenyan Savior vs. Punjabi Menace

No one may do to liberals what liberals do to Horowitz without being condemed as a hatemonger. Critics of Chuck Schumer must be careful never to make any reference to Schumer’s Jewishness. No opponent of Loretta Sanchez can suggest that her Hispanic ancestry somehow explains her political commitments. And don’t even think about criticizing Al Sharpton.

A sort of ideological force-field surrounds liberal ethnic loyalties, so that while Barack Obama may invoke his Kenyan paternity as a political asset — and what else is the authorial teleology of Dreams From My Father? — no opponent is permitted to invoke this factor as a potential liability. The liberal worldview confers upon Obama the presumption of victimhood and then waits vigilantly for opportunities to denounce the presumed victimizers, i.e., Evil White Republicans.

Nikki Haley’s Punjabi ancestry and Sikh upbringing are not similarly off-limits to liberals, because liberals carry with them the presumption of goodwill. If liberals can caricature David Horowitz as a crafty scheming Jew — which is what a liberal means when he calls Horowitz a “neocon” — then it is perfectly fair game for a liberal to suggest that Nikki Haley is a phony sellout trying to pass herself off as a white Christian.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: It’s wrong to accuse liberals of not having standards.

They have exactly two — one for them, and one for everybody else.

Category: Progressivism, Racism, South Carolina

Comments

57 Responses to “Liberal Decides It’s OK to Hint Politicians May Be Hiding Their ‘True’ Religion”

  1. CGHill
    June 13th, 2010 @ 8:48 pm

    Waitaminnit. Chuckie Schemer is Jewish? Sheesh. What’s next? You gonna tell me he’s black?

  2. CGHill
    June 13th, 2010 @ 4:48 pm

    Waitaminnit. Chuckie Schemer is Jewish? Sheesh. What’s next? You gonna tell me he’s black?

  3. @ChasReader
    June 13th, 2010 @ 10:15 pm

    An interesting aside:

    The South Carolina Constitution prohibits non-believers from holding office.

    Article VI, Section 2 reads, “No person who denies the existence of the Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution.”

    See http://www.scstatehouse.gov/scconstitution/a06.htm

    Not that it matters in Haley’s case. She has declared herself to be Christian, and I would argue that a Sikh would meet the qualification as well.

  4. @ChasReader
    June 13th, 2010 @ 6:15 pm

    An interesting aside:

    The South Carolina Constitution prohibits non-believers from holding office.

    Article VI, Section 2 reads, “No person who denies the existence of the Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution.”

    See http://www.scstatehouse.gov/scconstitution/a06.htm

    Not that it matters in Haley’s case. She has declared herself to be Christian, and I would argue that a Sikh would meet the qualification as well.

  5. Robert Stacy McCain
    June 13th, 2010 @ 10:31 pm

    Dang, CG. You were supposed to praise me for the memorable phrase “authorial teleology.”

    ] Downding [

  6. Robert Stacy McCain
    June 13th, 2010 @ 6:31 pm

    Dang, CG. You were supposed to praise me for the memorable phrase “authorial teleology.”

    ] Downding [

  7. johnl
    June 13th, 2010 @ 10:33 pm

    The single most common reason to convert is for love, to make a single religion home to raise children in. There is nothing inauthentic about that. Neela is a creep.

  8. johnl
    June 13th, 2010 @ 6:33 pm

    The single most common reason to convert is for love, to make a single religion home to raise children in. There is nothing inauthentic about that. Neela is a creep.

  9. Estragon
    June 13th, 2010 @ 11:37 pm

    You take a well-crafted piece and ruin it with “vote for my favorite crooked lunatic, J.D. Hayworth.”

    Sure – if you like guys who feather their nests with lobbyists’ cash, keep tainted contributions, flout election laws and accept illegal contributions, and pack earmarks tighter than Gerry Nadler’s sportscoat. Oh, and believe in birtherism and whatever other stupid thing is liable to fall out of idiot-boy J.D.’s mouth at any given moment, and put a safe Senate seat at risk by doing it.

    That wouldn’t be a conservative vote, and it wouldn’t be a smart vote.

  10. Estragon
    June 13th, 2010 @ 7:37 pm

    You take a well-crafted piece and ruin it with “vote for my favorite crooked lunatic, J.D. Hayworth.”

    Sure – if you like guys who feather their nests with lobbyists’ cash, keep tainted contributions, flout election laws and accept illegal contributions, and pack earmarks tighter than Gerry Nadler’s sportscoat. Oh, and believe in birtherism and whatever other stupid thing is liable to fall out of idiot-boy J.D.’s mouth at any given moment, and put a safe Senate seat at risk by doing it.

    That wouldn’t be a conservative vote, and it wouldn’t be a smart vote.

  11. Dandapani
    June 13th, 2010 @ 11:56 pm

    People, people, Sikhs and Hindus DO believe in a Supreme God. We just believe he can be called by many different names. Just as a woman can be called wife, daughter, mother, sister, aunt, the woman is one, just as God is One. Please get educated and don’t go all Islamic on us.

  12. Dandapani
    June 13th, 2010 @ 7:56 pm

    People, people, Sikhs and Hindus DO believe in a Supreme God. We just believe he can be called by many different names. Just as a woman can be called wife, daughter, mother, sister, aunt, the woman is one, just as God is One. Please get educated and don’t go all Islamic on us.

  13. Joe
    June 14th, 2010 @ 1:02 am

    I could care less if Nikki is Sikh, Hindu or Christian, provided she promoted conservative values and ideals in her decision making. She does (so does Bobby Jindal). But for those to whom it matters, she is a Christian convert.

    She chose Christ.

    Unlike some liberals and so called conservatives in South Carolina who were born into it and that is about it as far as religion goes.

  14. Joe
    June 13th, 2010 @ 9:02 pm

    I could care less if Nikki is Sikh, Hindu or Christian, provided she promoted conservative values and ideals in her decision making. She does (so does Bobby Jindal). But for those to whom it matters, she is a Christian convert.

    She chose Christ.

    Unlike some liberals and so called conservatives in South Carolina who were born into it and that is about it as far as religion goes.

  15. @ChasReader
    June 14th, 2010 @ 1:14 am

    Dandapani,
    That’s why I said I would argue that Sikhs meet the qualification. There are some that would argue that persons that do not have *one* name or *one* representation for their God would not. I don’t hold that opinion. I respect your beliefs and would go to bat for you.

    I didn’t think it would be necessary to name all religions that would qualify. Just so I don’t leave anyone out, let me be clear by saying, in my opinion, the only persons the SC Constitution disqualifies are people like myself: atheists.

    I don’t think that’s right…but I’ll reserve that discussion for a different comment/essay.

  16. @ChasReader
    June 13th, 2010 @ 9:14 pm

    Dandapani,
    That’s why I said I would argue that Sikhs meet the qualification. There are some that would argue that persons that do not have *one* name or *one* representation for their God would not. I don’t hold that opinion. I respect your beliefs and would go to bat for you.

    I didn’t think it would be necessary to name all religions that would qualify. Just so I don’t leave anyone out, let me be clear by saying, in my opinion, the only persons the SC Constitution disqualifies are people like myself: atheists.

    I don’t think that’s right…but I’ll reserve that discussion for a different comment/essay.

  17. Roxeanne de Luca
    June 14th, 2010 @ 1:52 am

    So what if Nikki Haley were still a Sikh? She would believe in one Supreme God, selflessness, gender and racial equality, and goodwill towards one’s fellow humans.

    Last time I checked, that’s what liberals think that Jesus was all about (except for the One God part). So what would be the problem? Republicans can’t believe in equality and love?

  18. Roxeanne de Luca
    June 13th, 2010 @ 9:52 pm

    So what if Nikki Haley were still a Sikh? She would believe in one Supreme God, selflessness, gender and racial equality, and goodwill towards one’s fellow humans.

    Last time I checked, that’s what liberals think that Jesus was all about (except for the One God part). So what would be the problem? Republicans can’t believe in equality and love?

  19. DaveP.
    June 14th, 2010 @ 1:58 am

    Yep, Estragon: Because America needs more of the man Who Gave Us Barack Obama!

    (not that there’s anything wrong with that- McCain has ALWAYS prided himself on that level of bipartisanship…)

  20. DaveP.
    June 13th, 2010 @ 9:58 pm

    Yep, Estragon: Because America needs more of the man Who Gave Us Barack Obama!

    (not that there’s anything wrong with that- McCain has ALWAYS prided himself on that level of bipartisanship…)

  21. David R. Graham
    June 14th, 2010 @ 2:24 am

    Praise for the phrase “authorial teleology.” I am a theologian and teleology is central to the concern, as it is to life in toto.

    But the burden of this note is not on that, for which, yet, I am thankful in that it preserves and promotes an axial reality: history aims at a goal (which is above history).

    The burden of the note is to suggest a substitute for the words liberal and conservative, or what is the same thing in modern parlance, left and right.

    These words are essentially hollow on the one hand and confer on their intended referents an excess of credit and respect on the other.

    I am a liberal and a conservative, as are you and any lady or gentleman deserving the respect intrinsic to those honorifics (that is, lady and gentleman).

    I doubt you want to go, and I can understand why not, however, here is the suggestion:

    for liberal/left, totalitarian

    for conservative/right, freedom fighter.

    Thanks for all you do, very much indeed. You are an educated man, meaning a man of refined sensibilities, which is vastly different from being a clever man, meaning an individual with a load of lumber in the mind, which is detestable.

    Carry on, my friend, you must prevail!

  22. David R. Graham
    June 13th, 2010 @ 10:24 pm

    Praise for the phrase “authorial teleology.” I am a theologian and teleology is central to the concern, as it is to life in toto.

    But the burden of this note is not on that, for which, yet, I am thankful in that it preserves and promotes an axial reality: history aims at a goal (which is above history).

    The burden of the note is to suggest a substitute for the words liberal and conservative, or what is the same thing in modern parlance, left and right.

    These words are essentially hollow on the one hand and confer on their intended referents an excess of credit and respect on the other.

    I am a liberal and a conservative, as are you and any lady or gentleman deserving the respect intrinsic to those honorifics (that is, lady and gentleman).

    I doubt you want to go, and I can understand why not, however, here is the suggestion:

    for liberal/left, totalitarian

    for conservative/right, freedom fighter.

    Thanks for all you do, very much indeed. You are an educated man, meaning a man of refined sensibilities, which is vastly different from being a clever man, meaning an individual with a load of lumber in the mind, which is detestable.

    Carry on, my friend, you must prevail!

  23. RES
    June 14th, 2010 @ 2:40 am

    Estragon, if I understand your criticism correctly, your complaint seems to be that Hayworth acts like a Democrat but votes like a Republican?

    Count me among those who don’t care who or how Nikki Haley worships so long as her policies are conservative.

  24. RES
    June 13th, 2010 @ 10:40 pm

    Estragon, if I understand your criticism correctly, your complaint seems to be that Hayworth acts like a Democrat but votes like a Republican?

    Count me among those who don’t care who or how Nikki Haley worships so long as her policies are conservative.

  25. Joe
    June 14th, 2010 @ 2:52 am

    Yep, Estragon: Because America needs more of the man Who Gave Us Barack Obama!

    It was not McCain who gave us Barack Obama. It was a reaction to George Bush, an a pathetic campaign by Hillary Clinton, that gave us Barack Obama.

    So do you really believe the results would have been different if Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee was the nominee? McCain might have won if he went on the offensive and did not act like an idiot when the economy went into meltdown–but that is still a big if.

  26. Joe
    June 13th, 2010 @ 10:52 pm

    Yep, Estragon: Because America needs more of the man Who Gave Us Barack Obama!

    It was not McCain who gave us Barack Obama. It was a reaction to George Bush, an a pathetic campaign by Hillary Clinton, that gave us Barack Obama.

    So do you really believe the results would have been different if Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee was the nominee? McCain might have won if he went on the offensive and did not act like an idiot when the economy went into meltdown–but that is still a big if.

  27. Thomas L. Knapp
    June 14th, 2010 @ 3:34 am

    “End my family’s shame: Vote for J.D. Hayworth!”

    If there’s anything more embarrassing than being related to John McCain, it has to be being related to someone who can’t beat an opponent as obviously and terribly deranged as JD Hayworth. It’s like someone pinned a penis on and handed a crack pipe to one of Tenessee Williams’s female leads characters.

  28. Thomas L. Knapp
    June 13th, 2010 @ 11:34 pm

    “End my family’s shame: Vote for J.D. Hayworth!”

    If there’s anything more embarrassing than being related to John McCain, it has to be being related to someone who can’t beat an opponent as obviously and terribly deranged as JD Hayworth. It’s like someone pinned a penis on and handed a crack pipe to one of Tenessee Williams’s female leads characters.

  29. nicholas
    June 14th, 2010 @ 4:10 am

    Great post, Stace.

  30. nicholas
    June 14th, 2010 @ 12:10 am

    Great post, Stace.

  31. Cousin Sam
    June 14th, 2010 @ 6:55 am

    “It was not McCain who gave us Barack Obama. It was a reaction to George Bush, an a pathetic campaign by Hillary Clinton, that gave us Barack Obama.”

    Joe, Estragon, etc – It was none of those people that “gave” us Barack Obama, he was neither appointed nor annointed to the position. It was the American Voters that gave us B.O. Voting in a free country is not a right, it is a Responsibility, and one which the American Voters failed at in the last election (and not just that election). It was readily apparent to anyone paying attention that B.O. represented and believed in a great many ideas that a significant majority of the voting public finds reprehensible, but the voting public did not bother to educate themselves on the candidates, as is their responsibility, despite the fact that the ease of doing so is far greater now than it ever has been. Instead, they chose to follow sloganeering, rhetoric, and vapid platitudes instead of minimally educating themselves on the choice at hand, and as a group we need only look ourselves in the mirror to find who “gave” us Barack Obama.

    Shame on us.

    (Don’t try to shift the blame – that’s Obama’s job.)

  32. Cousin Sam
    June 14th, 2010 @ 2:55 am

    “It was not McCain who gave us Barack Obama. It was a reaction to George Bush, an a pathetic campaign by Hillary Clinton, that gave us Barack Obama.”

    Joe, Estragon, etc – It was none of those people that “gave” us Barack Obama, he was neither appointed nor annointed to the position. It was the American Voters that gave us B.O. Voting in a free country is not a right, it is a Responsibility, and one which the American Voters failed at in the last election (and not just that election). It was readily apparent to anyone paying attention that B.O. represented and believed in a great many ideas that a significant majority of the voting public finds reprehensible, but the voting public did not bother to educate themselves on the candidates, as is their responsibility, despite the fact that the ease of doing so is far greater now than it ever has been. Instead, they chose to follow sloganeering, rhetoric, and vapid platitudes instead of minimally educating themselves on the choice at hand, and as a group we need only look ourselves in the mirror to find who “gave” us Barack Obama.

    Shame on us.

    (Don’t try to shift the blame – that’s Obama’s job.)

  33. DaveP.
    June 14th, 2010 @ 9:13 am

    Sam, you can’t beat something with nothing; and maybe if we had fielded a candidate whose best reason for election wasn’t, “It’s my turn!” , we wouldn’t have wound up with the bad clown show we have today.
    Reagan or Nixon would’ve skunked Barry O.; even Bush Senior would’ve given him som e bad moments… but the Republican candidate in ’08 was a guy who thought that his opponent would make just a great President- and said so.

    So thanks, John McC, for working as hard as you did to give us President Obama. Hope it makes yo usleep better at night.

  34. DaveP.
    June 14th, 2010 @ 5:13 am

    Sam, you can’t beat something with nothing; and maybe if we had fielded a candidate whose best reason for election wasn’t, “It’s my turn!” , we wouldn’t have wound up with the bad clown show we have today.
    Reagan or Nixon would’ve skunked Barry O.; even Bush Senior would’ve given him som e bad moments… but the Republican candidate in ’08 was a guy who thought that his opponent would make just a great President- and said so.

    So thanks, John McC, for working as hard as you did to give us President Obama. Hope it makes yo usleep better at night.

  35. Virginia Right! News Hound for 6/14/2010 | Virginia Right!
    June 14th, 2010 @ 6:35 am

    […] Liberal Decides It’s OK to Hint Politicians May Be Hiding Their ‘True’ Religion […]

  36. John McCain
    June 14th, 2010 @ 11:39 am

    My friends, it looks like I am coming back.

  37. John McCain
    June 14th, 2010 @ 7:39 am

    My friends, it looks like I am coming back.

  38. John McCain
    June 14th, 2010 @ 11:44 am

    If there’s anything more embarrassing than being related to John McCain, it has to be being related to someone who can’t beat an opponent as obviously and terribly deranged as JD Hayworth. It’s like someone pinned a penis on and handed a crack pipe to one of Tenessee Williams’s female leads characters.

    I am going to walk along the border a few more times and growl, “Build the damn fence.”

  39. John McCain
    June 14th, 2010 @ 7:44 am

    If there’s anything more embarrassing than being related to John McCain, it has to be being related to someone who can’t beat an opponent as obviously and terribly deranged as JD Hayworth. It’s like someone pinned a penis on and handed a crack pipe to one of Tenessee Williams’s female leads characters.

    I am going to walk along the border a few more times and growl, “Build the damn fence.”

  40. Bob Belvedere
    June 14th, 2010 @ 11:48 am

    -Another gem for the Best Of… book, Stacy.

    -I would like to second the Rev. Graham’s last two paragraphs.

    -If you ever become rich, why then you’d be ‘a man of wealth and taste’.

    –Authorial teleology: WFB would be proud of you.

    –Like Goethe’s devil cited by Marx in the Nineteenth Brumaire, Progressives believe “everything that exists” – in the sense of anything a conservative would recognize as distinctly American — “deserves to perish.” This is the nihilism at the heart of the Left.

  41. Bob Belvedere
    June 14th, 2010 @ 7:48 am

    -Another gem for the Best Of… book, Stacy.

    -I would like to second the Rev. Graham’s last two paragraphs.

    -If you ever become rich, why then you’d be ‘a man of wealth and taste’.

    –Authorial teleology: WFB would be proud of you.

    –Like Goethe’s devil cited by Marx in the Nineteenth Brumaire, Progressives believe “everything that exists” – in the sense of anything a conservative would recognize as distinctly American — “deserves to perish.” This is the nihilism at the heart of the Left.

  42. Joe
    June 14th, 2010 @ 12:02 pm

    Crazy isn’t limited to South Carolina politicians…

    I am not sure the back story on this, but the reaction of this Democrat seems a tad over the top.

  43. Joe
    June 14th, 2010 @ 8:02 am

    Crazy isn’t limited to South Carolina politicians…

    I am not sure the back story on this, but the reaction of this Democrat seems a tad over the top.

  44. Joe
    June 14th, 2010 @ 1:06 pm

    And Cousin Sam, you are correct. 52.9% of voters who gave us Barack Obama.

    McCain may have been able to pull it out, but he was facing the ebb tide of a two term GOP leader who was polling under 40% and a collapsing economy. Oh, and the press and libtard establishment did not care for Sarah Palin and apparently neither did many of his own campaign staffers.

    There is an anglo saxon word to describe that. It begins with “F” and it is not friends.

  45. Joe
    June 14th, 2010 @ 9:06 am

    And Cousin Sam, you are correct. 52.9% of voters who gave us Barack Obama.

    McCain may have been able to pull it out, but he was facing the ebb tide of a two term GOP leader who was polling under 40% and a collapsing economy. Oh, and the press and libtard establishment did not care for Sarah Palin and apparently neither did many of his own campaign staffers.

    There is an anglo saxon word to describe that. It begins with “F” and it is not friends.

  46. Joe
    June 14th, 2010 @ 1:10 pm

    And Dave P. It took two years to get Mac Daddy and the alternative choices were not exactly electrifying.

    I pinned my hopes on Fred Thompson, but he apparently preferred sipping bourbon on the post and sleeping in late with Jeri.

    And frankly, I can’t fault him for that.

  47. Joe
    June 14th, 2010 @ 9:10 am

    And Dave P. It took two years to get Mac Daddy and the alternative choices were not exactly electrifying.

    I pinned my hopes on Fred Thompson, but he apparently preferred sipping bourbon on the post and sleeping in late with Jeri.

    And frankly, I can’t fault him for that.

  48. Some of the headlines you may have missed… « Cubachi
    June 14th, 2010 @ 9:16 am

    […] Decides It’s OK to Hint Politicians May Be Hiding Their ‘True’ […]

  49. Joe
    June 14th, 2010 @ 2:10 pm

    Charlie Crist, Arlen Specter, Artur Davis: Can Centrists Survive?

    This is a story that makes you want to throw coffee at your computer. Perhaps this headline should be modified?

  50. Joe
    June 14th, 2010 @ 10:10 am

    Charlie Crist, Arlen Specter, Artur Davis: Can Centrists Survive?

    This is a story that makes you want to throw coffee at your computer. Perhaps this headline should be modified?

    About

    This is an area on your website where you can add text. This will serve as an informative location on your website, where you can talk about your site.

    Subscribe to our feed

    Search

    Admin